Clinton IT aide ordered to produce immunity agreement

First we heard that Pagliano plans to take the fifth, now we're told that the judge wants to see his immunity agreement if he wants to take the fifth. While most of us would love to hear Pagliano testify, this will possibly give us a little insight into his role in the FBI's investigation of HRC and her server.

The real question is will Hilley be immune or indicted?


Clinton IT aide ordered to produce immunity agreement

Pagliano’s lawyers have said that he had been planning to assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

But on Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan declared that Pagliano’s lawyers need to file a legal memorandum outlining the legal authority for him to claim plead the Fifth, “including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the government.”

The order will likely shed some light on the terms of Pagliano’s agreement with the Justice Department, which was seen as a potential vulnerability for Clinton in the FBI’s probe. Law enforcement officials are exploring whether Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information through the use of her private server.

source

Judge Sullivan is a Bill Clinton appointee.

He has done as much as he reasonably can to suppress the damage to Mrs.Clinton.

The 250 objections and 189 "do no recall' responses of Cheryl Mills testimony would be much clearer if he hadn't sealed the video.

By doing so he has concealed substantive evidence from the public.

I wonder if he would prefer that the problem was solved for him by Loretta Lynch conceding to the FBI and allowing the indictment to happen.

Another day, another piece of the puzzle.

Clinton Aide Doesn’t Want Deposition Videotaped for Fear It Will Make Him Look Guilty

The latest reply by Pagliano’s attorneys was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. What is most interesting about the newly filed document is the reasoning that Pagliano gives for not wanting a video made public in which he asserts his Fifth Amendment rights.

Pagliano’s attorneys stated:

The very existence of an audiovisual recording presents a risk that the video will eventually be exploited to create a widely broadcast public inference of guilt…..

However, the danger from a constitutional perspective is not the effect of the video on the trier of fact in this civil case, but the potential tainting effect on the jury pool in a potential government enforcement action.

As we reported earlier, Judicial Watch contends a videotaped deposition of Pagliano asserting his Fifth Amendment rights will help the judge in making an assessment of Pagliano’s demeanor.

source

And a link to the Judicial Watch article:

Federal Judge Orders Clinton IT Witness To Produce Reported Immunity Agreement, Legal Basis for Fifth Amendment Claims

Judge Sullivan’s order, issued at 5:22 pm, “minute order” states:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano’s reported immunity agreement with the Government. Mr. Pagliano’s Memorandum of Law, along with a copy of his reported immunity agreement, shall be filed no later than Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. The parties are ordered to file responsive memoranda of law no later than Friday, June 10, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Pagliano shall file a reply memorandum no later than Monday, June 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 3, 2016.

“The court’s order is an important step to getting more answers from Mr. Pagliano about Hillary Clinton’s email system,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

source

I can't stand Hillary, but I don't think she will be indicted. She thinks she's above the law because she is.

a reply to: BoxFulder

She will be pardoned by Obama if she withdraws and Biden becomes the Democratic Nominee.

The risk of letting Trump win is that Obama and Clinton both go to trial.

If I am reading this correctly, the Judge would need to ask to see the immunity agreement and what the conditions were. He may have conceded his right to plea the 5th in exchange for his immunity.

But do those conditions also apply to JW and this FOIA case?

a reply to: AlaskanDad

As of March, Congress didn't even know what the contents of Pagliano's immunity deal included:

We are writing regarding the immunity agreement between the Department of Justice and Mr. Bryan Pagliano, the IT Specialist who was responsible for managing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s non-government email server and related matters during her time leading the State Department. In light of yesterday’s Washington Post article reporting that the Department of Justice has granted immunity to Mr. Pagliano, we request a copy of that immunity agreement.

Grassley, Johnson Seek Details of DOJ Immunity Agreement with Former Clinton IT Staffer

I wonder if the immunity deal was filed under seal?

a reply to: introvert

The US Attorney has policy....

www.justice.gov...

There is no way he has immunity without "serving the public interest" as far as that goes.

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: introvert

The US Attorney has policy....

www.justice.gov...

There is no way he has immunity without "serving the public interest" as far as that goes.

I'm unsure of your specific point. Can you elaborate?

Well this confirms the speculation whether he had immunity.

And, watch for somebody to move for sealing the report.

If the public sees the immunity deal, all Hell could break loose in the Hillary Campaign.

The immunity specification might clue in to what he is telling the "FBI on the sly".

a reply to: introvert

There are different types of immunity.

The conditions depend on the value of the evidence.

A Judge must approve the deal.

It would not be realistic to propose that the value of Mr.Paglianos evidence is related to a FOIA case involving Judicial Watch. I seem to remember you referring to them as "nutters" but I may be mistaken.

The FBI are investigating far more serious alleged criminal offences.

Judge Sullivan is a Bill Clinton appointee. He has done as much as he reasonably can to suppress the damage to Mrs.Clinton.

a reply to: draoicht

How convenient. Justice is never applied to people with power and influence.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Ruhhh rowwww, bark bark bark bark. -Hillary probably...


I feel bad for this IT guy, he was just doing his job, sure he knew it was questionable but who is he to refuse the commands of her highness? I am surprised he hasn't had a car wreck or a heart attack, or even a boating accident. That is probably why he is behaving this way. He does not want to be political fodder which can lead to a deadly result when dealing with the Clintons.

I said a few days ago that I hoped there would be something by Jun 6. The FBI will either have to allow him to produce it or try to squash it from becoming public.

They have until 5:00pm on Jun 7 to produce the immunity agreement.

I seriously doubt if the FBI is going to allow that agreement to become public prior to them completing their investigation.

Fun times are dead ahead folks...... stock up on popcorn now.... you are going to need it.

I still say this is going to be as big, if not bigger than Watergate.

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: BoxFulder

She will be pardoned by Obama if she withdraws and Biden becomes the Democratic Nominee.

The risk of letting Trump win is that Obama and Clinton both go to trial.

What would you say are chances of that happening? How would they cope with wrath of Bernie supporters? I don't know if that's easy as it sounds...especially if Bernie wins California.

Immunized? Gammaglob cant compare to that , well errr...ummmm. I will think of something PC soon
Please stand by

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Here is the actual order:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the Government.

Isn't the legal authority to assert Fifth Amendment protections the constitution? I didn't think you had to have case law justification in order to assert fifth amendment rights.

In any case, this whole thing is as tangled as a basket of yarn after kittens get in and wreak havoc.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Here is the actual order:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the Government.

Isn't the legal authority to assert Fifth Amendment protections the constitution? I didn't think you had to have case law justification in order to assert fifth amendment rights.

In any case, this whole thing is as tangled as a basket of yarn after kittens get in and wreak havoc.

I think there are stipulations due to this being a civil case, wherein invoking the fifth may be ruled against as an admission of guilt.

The Constitution protects us in criminal proceedings from incriminating ourselves but I do not think this protection is as strong in civil cases.

This is my understanding as it has been explained to me but I have not independently verified this is true.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Here is the actual order:

The deposition of non-party Bryan Pagliano is hereby postponed until further order of the Court. Counsel for Mr. Pagliano shall file a Memorandum of Law addressing the legal authority upon which Mr. Pagliano relies to assert his Fifth Amendment rights in this civil proceeding, including requisite details pertaining to the scope of Mr. Pagliano's reported immunity agreement with the Government.

Isn't the legal authority to assert Fifth Amendment protections the constitution? I didn't think you had to have case law justification in order to assert fifth amendment rights.

In any case, this whole thing is as tangled as a basket of yarn after kittens get in and wreak havoc.

Only for criminal proceedings. In a civil proceeding it's quite a bit different. You can plead the 5th to protect yourself from later criminal proceedings. If his immunity deal already protects him, then it would seem the Constitution may not allow him to plead the 5th in the civil proceeding either, as there is no criminal incrimination. Either way it's not black and white like a criminal case, and then his immunity agreement muddies it up too.

www.washingtonpost.com...